My family (speaking of us 9 siblings and parents) has struggled with the idea that some siblings are in and some out of the LDS faith tradition (we all strongly identified as being LDS previously). We recently were discussing ideas for some kind of family motto, and so I wanted to write out what I felt were values we all still shared. I'm guessing most Mormons and former Mormons value the vast majority of these.

[The recent humanizing efforts going on here made me think of this. And "yes" /u/nebulata, your humanity is still very much in question despite the tender memes/videos you posted intending to catch us off guard ;)]

I think there is plenty of elevation to be found listening to some kinds of music. If you haven't really dug into the classical world much, there are some extraordinary symphonies, for instance, that will give you this experience. I think choral music can do this, also, so don't forget some of the choral classics. It can take a while to get used to the style, of course, assuming you're not already accustomed. Lately, I've been enamored with the beginning of this piece.

Any time you see or read stories of altruism or great moral beauty, then you're likely to get that feeling, too. For example

I would rather find an easier faster way to feel elevation

As far as I can tell, elevation appears to be tied into behavior which serves others (i.e., the group). I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to short circuit that process since meaning is also so important to us (not just feelings). So, trying to get outside and help out others is what elevation really is all about. I feel elevation most strongly and persistently when I'm helping someone out.

I've gone through several of his research articles fairly carefully. They seem solid to me, and they are up-front about the inherent biases in them. So, I personally think his peer reviewed research is just fine to reference. I've read critiques of his research, but they are not really saying anything that isn't already acknowledged to some degree in the papers themselves.

Dehlin has been around the block for a while. I think he's been careful in some areas of research (like blacks and the priesthood) and much less careful with other areas of research (so, Book of Mormon archaeology issues, for instance). As others have pointed out, he's a great starting point (because he's probably the most well-connected person in ex-mormondom), but you'll be disappointed if you don't do your own fact-checking (not that he's being deliberately dishonest--I don't think he is--just that he doesn't possess or speak with precision on every topic, which is normal for humans). I think it's very safe to say that Dehlin is at least as accurate, precise, and truthful on almost any given topic as LDS Church published material or anything spoken by a GA (that bar has not been set very high, of course).

Basically, the University of Iowa has "solved" the issue by prioritizing non discrimination policy/law over the free exercise of religion when it comes to official state sanction and use of state facilities and funds. I'm okay with that because none of these groups are being denied existence, only state sponsorship. It's a subtle distinction, but I think they got it right. But I'm very open to being convinced otherwise.

[The validity of permanent anti-discrimination laws are another issue that deserves consideration. If there's an issue, I think the issue is here?]

Edit: she said she dosen't care about my religion and will not try to convert me.

She may say that, but the experience most people seem to have with those kinds of Mormons is that they eventually demand or request that their partner convert. That's because Latter-day Saints tend to be deeply socialized into a worldview where marriage in a temple (meaning you've been a deeply committed Mormon for 1 year prior) is the only viable goal.

Also, they are not likely to leave the religion (or the LDS worldview) without a substantial struggle (see #14) and when they do they may not come out on the other side all that much like their former self (some members--like most people--experience huge swings in behavior and attitude when/if their major worldview crumbles).

I'm not saying a relationship with her is a bad thing, but until you understand the LDS worldview in some depth then you do not understand what you are getting into and you may eventually come to deeply regret your decision if you didn't go into it eyes-wide open.

This can be tough. In one of my responses, I used the words "con man" when referring to Joseph Smith. This is my sincere belief. I have so many problems with this man (a man that I would have died for, during my TBM days). It's difficult to be civil while trying to characterize how I fell about Joseph Smith.

I use a lot of tones when talking here; some respectful, some not. It just depends on the subject/ context. I'm not going to curtail my posts to every sensitivity especially when some of the subjects we discuss stand opposite of what I see as morality.

I think people should just say what they believe and stop worrying about internet points.

But it's just one major block of sensitivity (the LDS sensitivity), right?

On top of that, since you were probably LDS before, then you already know the kinds of things that would be offensive, so it's not that hard to exercise some restraint, right?

especially when some of the subjects we discuss stand opposite of what I see as morality

I can appreciate that, and I feel the same way about all the truth-claim issues funneling directly into morality (all the truth-claims influence well-being in very dramatic ways, either directly or indirectly). Still, isn't part of being a moral person speaking in such a way that you are doing good to others and not inflicting harm where it can be avoided? [i.e., the means matter as much as the end, right?] And if one's inflammatory speech or presentation actually drives believing members away from discovering or seriously considering the truth-claim data for themselves, isn't that a moral harm based on your own moral position?

My ancestry traces back to Hyrum Smith (he is my 5th great-grandfather, so Joseph is my 5th great-granduncle) and with the passing of a relative in the past few years, a couple random possessions came into my parents' hands (or were donated to BYU; I actually hand-delivered one item that once belonged to Jerusha Barden, Hyrum's first wife, to the BYU library a few years ago while still in school).

This book was signed by the First Presidency in 1935 and given to my great-grandfather when he was older, perhaps while he was serving as bishop for a ward in southern Utah. I found this post on /r/freemasonry which describes the book as follows:

The Relationship of “Mormonism” and Freemasonry by Anthony W. Ivins, 1934.

This book was written by who was then serving as the First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Mormon church. It is mostly a response to Mormonism and Masonry. It is addressed to Masons and combines a missionary approach with an olive branch of sorts, and a strong argument for the ancient origins theory. Provides a defense of the supposed ancient origin of the Book of Mormon. It is interesting that the first presidency signed copies of this book and gave them out as personalized gifts.

Seems like I'll need to read the book, as one of my issues while questioning the Church related to the oft-taught ancient origins theory for the temple ceremony. That same page on /r/freemasonry defines the ancient origins theory as follows:

The Ancient Origins Theory

This theory argues that the Mormon temple ceremonies and the Masonic degrees are both literal descendants from Solomon’s Temple. They have been passed down person to person by the Masons over the centuries, and transmitted to Joseph through heavenly revelations. This theory is usually taken by Mormons that are not Masons. Most of the Nauvoo Mormons seemed to believe this theory.

It's certainly worth noting that a member of the First Presidency authored this book with a strong argument for the ancient origins theory and that the subsequent First Presidency opted to distribute personalized copies of the book. This note has been glued into one of the first few pages of the book.

Fascinating. I would love to better understand the data and arguments for/against Freemasonry as privy to ancient knowledge/ceremony. I'm aware that most historians without any skin in the game view it as no older than around the 1400s?

I've produced a simple helps/harms summary and somebody went to a lot of trouble to make this website, which is amazing. But neither of these are very analytic or definitive.

Maybe the greatest obvious harms are towards minority groups?

I appreciate the biases in his research, but John Dehlin in concert with several others has done some good research into outcomes with homosexuals in the LDS Church (I've read through a lot of the studies in detail). That research decisively shows (IMHO) that homosexuals do better in measures of mental health outside the LDS Church, on average. What about claims from LDS professors that religion can (potentially) increase the mental health of homosexuals? Well, they've yet to demonstrate that (on average), and I can't imagine what is stopping them (if only the LDS Church had in its possession a private research university with professors trained in the family and social sciences and access to the contact information of its membership and a willingness to conduct research surveys to understand its membership). I mean, they were literally willing to attach electrodes to the genitals of homosexuals at BYU in the past (on threat of expulsion) while showing them pornography in order to figure out how to cure them, so it's not asking all that much for them to systematically study the well-being of homosexuals in their church today. So, I think it is fair to suspect that the LDS Church does more harm than good to homosexuals (and to those theologically pressured into heterosexual marriages which are highly likely to fail). Again, this is on average (I'm aware of one homosexual man who was a participant in the aforementioned study who returned to the LDS Church and finds well-being in it today).

The homosexual rhetoric (a small portion of which can be found here) has never been denounced (and it never will be?, since the LDS Church does not apologize). That rhetoric was toxic to the core. Today, the rhetoric is much better for the most part, but it still demoralizing for many homosexuals, I think (well, all those who desire frivolous things like romantic/sexual companionship in this life).

Then, there are the stories from protect lds children (some chunk of which are likely legitimate). Based on these stories (and my own personal experience with LDS interviews--no "grievous" sins but still massive anxiety associated with these interviews at various points), the psychological ramifications of LDS interview practices are troubling. At the very least, these practices probably nullify the good produced by some positive pastoral care that absolutely goes on.

When we look at the pain that a typical member of color might experience from their membership (see from 29 minutes on), that also looks like real trauma.

Finally, the LDS experience is very demoralizing over time for some significant fraction of women. Anecdotally, the way women in the LDS Church are treated was a major issue for all the exmos in my family (so, 4 of 9 families). The men experienced roughly the same happiness level in and out of the Church--the women were all substantially happier.

Maybe the feeling of some of this trauma is best captured in the last half of Nanette. She wasn't LDS, but you'll see the parallels.

If you are a straight, white, educated, wealthy or semi-wealthy LDS man then you aren't necessarily experiencing a lot of harms from the LDS Church: the LDS Church seems to have been crafted for your well-being! But if a person parses those helps/harms or pros/cons, they'll still find some that apply to them, too.

As one final note, I think the well-being literature (e.g., here) is useful to consider, but I think it suffers from survivorship bias--many of those who are harmed most by the LDS Church or its culture tend to leave it and stop identifying as LDS. So, the tragedies aren't really folded into these calculations? It's the same idea with the success of LDS temple marriages--sure LDS temple marriages are happy and suffer from less divorce on average, but that may represent a survivorship bias where all the "poor" mormons and train-wreck mormon relationships are filtered out of temple marriage statistics. It's complex, of course, but shouldn't we be counting the failures, too?

Life trajectories may also suffer from potential categorization errors. Growing up we always looked down on my uncles who left the LDS Church and then went out and became alcoholics (I'm exaggerating a bit for effect) and wondered why they just couldn't get their act together and tended to blame them for fractures in that family since their LDS father could hardly talk with his non-LDS children he was so disappointed in them. So, one way to read that data is: those who left the LDS Church were train-wrecks, ergo, membership in the LDS Church produces happy people so you should stay LDS, and if they'd only stayed then they could have had a happy family. The other way to read that data is that all of these children were raised LDS and the result was that many of them suffered such significant harm that their lives spiraled into destruction. And, the result of raising children LDS was to produce a fractured family where the father was inable to love and communicate with his children who didn't share his religious beliefs. Shouldn't the LDS program shoulder some of that blame? These failures need to be counted on the side of the LDS program, at least in some way.

I think that just scratches the surface on how complex a question this really is. Most of us just have to make our own intuitive calculation on it, sadly.

Thanks so much for this post. Very helpful. As a member of that class the Church is seemingly crafted for, I readily admit that I will never be able to fully experience the frustration and suffering from those neglected groups within the LDS framework. Reading others' experiences, though, has really opened my eyes and helped me become much more empathetic.

I think there are several negative issues that affect many members of the Church, however (including the "straight, white, educated, wealthy or semi-wealthy LDS [men]"). Most of these I wasn't even aware of until partway through my faith transition. I certainly wouldn't have been able to identify these issues while still a fully-believing member. A few examples:

Black-and-white thinking/rhetoric encouraged (this can influence members' attitudes and behavior toward non-members and in other aspects of their life; examples: other churches' creeds are abominations before Christ, Hinckley and others' bold quotes about being engaged in a great fraud if the Church wasn't true which implicitly means the faithful adherents of other churches are currently engaged in great frauds, 1 Nephi 13:28-29 saying Satan "hath great power over" those who use the Bible alone, etc.)

Intellectual dishonestly in official Church literature (many of the hypotheses/explanations in the Gospel Topics essays quite frankly do not adequately represent how weak some of those explanations actually are)

Setting an example of selectively disclosing information and being dishonest through half-truths (the pattern for teaching Church history over time, e.g. pictures/movies/lessons regarding BOM translation method; or any number of other misrepresented historical issues that have consistently been taught nearly exclusively in a "faith-promoting" manner. If I engaged in this sort of behavior in my own life I would not feel comfortable saying that I am honest in my dealings with my fellow-man since it is in tension with the Church's own definition of lying in the Gospel Principles manual)

Seemingly promoting willful ignorance among members (there is no active and consistent effort from the Church that I'm aware of to better educate its members using their official resources such as the Gospel Topics essays; my parents didn't even know those essays existed until 3 or 4 months ago when I showed them--see my post here where I describe how faithful and active they are. If these type of devout members weren't even aware of this information, how many members really are? Why aren't they promoting the official resources like the essays better maybe with recurring Ensign articles? I mean, I know why--but that's my issue. They're electing to not promote their own resources because it isn't necessarily as faith-promoting as your typical Ensign articles.)

Certain questions are not approved or considered valid (discussion here)

Other thought-stopping techniques employed if serious questions or concerns are raised (e.g., just focus on the good, doubt your doubts, stick to the basics, don't go to outside sources for information, etc.)

No official forum/avenue available for members to openly discuss their questions and doubts with ward members they love and are familiar with (you pretty much have to go to the various online message boards to be able to earnestly discuss these issues; also, you typically have to do so anonymously for fear of being labeled an anti-mormon)

Related: no satisfying answers or suggestions from the living prophets, seers, and revelators related to those who are seriously doubting, but still see some good in the Church (such people have to rely on the philosophies of LDS scholars and neo-apologists (mingled with scripture...) who are filling a vacuum that the Church seems to largely ignore)

No real reasons to believe that the prophet and apostles prophesy, see, or reveal much beyond typical inspiration available to members as they sometimes seem to operate more as administrators in a typical business-like upper management setting (there is a troubling tendency to walk back truth claims from bold proclamations/teachings by previous prophets and apostles or "unload the truth cart", however; D. Michael Quinn was seemingly more prophetic than the leadership of the Church related to "faith-promoting" history and the rise of the Information Age.)

Continuing to promote a persecution complex (even if an exmormon, or just a questioning member, is being completely charitable and nonthreatening on a controversial topic, he or she will still typically be labeled an "anti-mormon" who is just spreading lies/misinformation/partial-truths or referred to as a wolf in sheep's clothing who has been deceived by Satan and is now attempting to trick the faithful; blog post on the subject here)

Undue reliance on a "follow the prophet" / nearly blind faith mindset (I think the doctrinal fallibility of modern prophets and apostles is largely just lip service, examples here and here; the problem with this mindset is that members oftentimes become reliable on the Church to guide their moral compass (by sincerely believing that the prophets/apostles speak for God and are to always be trusted which is clearly the expectation--see those examples) even though prophets/apostles have been morally wrong very often throughout history! This moral compass then influences behavior and political positions.)

Unfairly applying a modified version of the partition algorithm to apostates (e.g., if an active member is suffering from depression or loses their job it is referred to as a trial that proves God's existence through refining and strengthening his children, but if someone who is doubting or no longer believes is going through something similar then it's a sign that that person has made a poor decision and is being "punished" by God to a certain extent (or at least no longer receiving divine assistance/protection))

The combination of several of these ended up making me feel almost "intellectually shamed" for openly discussing my concerns and studying them in-depth. People who engage in such research and online discussions oftentimes are told by members that they're being prideful for studying so much and then reaching a conclusion that differs from the pre-approved one. A very nice summary blog post that motivated some of my own thinking on this subject can be found here.

Well this turned into a much longer comment than expected. Some of these overlap quite a bit, and I've not formatted it the best, but it was still extremely helpful for me to document some of my own issues with the Church though.

This is a powerful response. I hadn't read some of those essays and thoughts, and they are very good. You should make this its own post.

I confess that for me personally, it was these kinds of issues that were the kinds of harms I could not tolerate (the "intellectual ethic" which was rotten at its core, at least as I saw it). Over time I've come to identify more with the plight of minorities in the LDS Church (and for some offenses against minorities are easier to see than the intellectual abuses since it's difficult to see the intellectual problems from within the LDS mindset). But yeah, these are abuses of the mind ("mindfuckery" if you will) experienced by most LDS members.

I knew about Joseph’s polygamy. But I was first taught that just like at first the saints did baptism and baptisms for the dead with chaos and a lack of understanding of order. So the saints thought they had to be sealed to Joseph to receive celestial glory. That’s why even some married women were sealed to him and teenagers, just to seal families together. And some of the sealings happened after his death. But eventually it was understood that they could be sealed to their own family just like it was eventually understood that you only needed to be baptized once, and baptisms for the dead were eventually only done in the temple.
Also that people married younger back then.
And of course, it was widows that Brigham was marrying...
That was the reasons given to me as a teenager. As an adult, I read and saw more info but I read FairMormon’s responses and tried to accept them. I have NEVER had a testimony that polygamy was from God, But my parents told me that I wouldn’t feel the spirit testifying of it if I wasn’t asked to live it. That the spirit never testifies of sin, and it would be a sin because it is illegal.

I have NEVER had a testimony that polygamy was from God, But my parents told me that I wouldn’t feel the spirit testifying of it if I wasn’t asked to live it. That the spirit never testifies of sin, and it would be a sin because it is illegal.

/u/Fuzzy_Thoughts ^ perhaps an example of an ad hoc hypothesis that you are thinking of collecting?

I've never heard this type of defense for polygamy before. Very interesting. It could fit the bill, though I think I'd prefer to focus on official Church teachings and defined positions from apologists rather then getting into more personal interpretations/explanations like this.

This is a really important exercise to demonstrate the enormous tension between the various grammars and the BoA, regardless of which direction you assume the grammar <-> translation proceeded (but everyone should be aware of the strong arguments in favor of the various grammars being the dictation of the original translation and not a retro-fit).

Well, for what it's worth, my GASL is a transcription of the original translation, not a retrofit. In other words, I worked out how I could fit meaning to the letters as I went. It was very hard to do it the other way (I tried this at first), but I couldn't keep any consistency between characters and meanings this way. I had to start with what letters were repeated and keep similar meanings at the same intervals that these letters showed up.

And not that anyone's asking my opinion, but Dillahunty is mostly an atheist apologist often no better than some of the apologists we see for theism, so I'd say it's incredibly healthy to disagree with his reasoning on many points.

But that's just my unsolicited opinion for those interested in thinking well about atheism and avoiding presuppositionalist nonsense a la Antony Flew variety.

Joseph Smith was not uneducated. Regardless, most of the theories being tossed around exmo circles these days involve other co-conspirators who had been preachers (Rigdon) or educated at Dartmouth (so, Hyrum Smith, where he probably heard John Smith's lectures). See the intro here

come up with 531 pages of ancient scripture on his own

It seems that numerous individuals have come up with far more scripture than 531 pages. Joseph's feat was not particularly remarkable among the list of potential holy books.

that was historically accurate

A few things have been discovered which line up with expectations for the BoM. Many things do not line up.

Would it be possible for that boy to understand and include ancient Hebrew literary writing styles such as idioms and Chiasmus, some of which weren’t even discovered until long after Joseph Smith was gone ?

How would Joseph Smith have been able to know so much about the Middle East, especially the Arabian Peninsula where Lehi and his family traveled? The book includes findings in that region that no one had discovered yet.

Why are there volumes of books written by non-LDS authors stating that Christ came and visited the America’s a couple thousand years ago just like it says in 3rd Nephi? (See Example “He Walked The America’s”) How would Joseph Smith have known this when at the time no one even considered it?

View of the Hebrews made much of the destruction of Jerusalem, the scattering of Israel, and its promised gathering “in the last days,” themes which are central to the Book of Mormon. Both books quoted extensively and almost exclusively from Isaiah, anticipating the literal fulfillment of Isaiahic prophecies; both conceived the American nation as the instrument by which Israel in America should be saved in the last days; and even the Book of Mormon’s conception of a ministry performed by Christ in the New World is implicit in Ethan Smith’s view of Quetzalcoatl, the dominant figure of Aztec mythology, as a “type of Christ.” (emphasis added)

If we have the stick of Judah (record of the Jews or the Bible), then where is the stick of Joseph that is referenced in Ezekiel 37:15-20? The Book of Mormon is the only explanation for this scripture.

In "This is My Doctrine", BYU professor Charles Harrell argues against this interpretation (quoted from here):

Scholars point out that each of the sticks Ezekiel refers to is no more than a piece of wood (hence the term “stick”), on which he was to inscribe a short phrase. It doesn’t appear to have been a scroll or writing board on which a lengthy record might be kept.

... Any uncertainty regarding the intended meaning of this passage disappears in the next verse in which the people ask ‘Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these?’ (v.18). Ezekiel responds that the sticks represent the kingdoms of Judah and Joseph, and that the joining of the two sticks symbolizes the reuniting of the two kingdoms under one king (vv. 19-23). Many LDS scholars today concur with this contextual meaning and therefore see the traditional LDS interpretation as a “secondary,” “revealed” meaning

How could there be so many witnesses of the Book of Mormon and the plates and not one of them deny their testimony even when some of them became bitter toward Joseph Smith? With so many people involved…a hoax of this magnitude could never go uncovered. How could the Book of Mormon never contradict itself while being an extremely complex book? After all these years…someone would have found something…but no.

Most theories posit only a few co-conspirators (if any). Again, see the intro here.

note to mods: This is the first in potentially a series of discussions or gentle debates comparing naturalism and the orthodox/apologetic LDS position. The request was made that we start with meta-ethics, so I am starting with the common naturalist position that morality is an emergent principle

Moral judgement emerges any time the following conditions exist:

A moral subject exists.

Moral subjects are entities that experience consciousness and there is some way in which they have a preferred existence (i.e., they have 'well-being').

A moral actor exists

A moral actor is any entity that is A) capable of approximating the well-being of a moral subject (e.g., they can imagine what it is like to be another conscious creature or in some way appreciate its well-being) and B) is aware and can comprehend that their actions may impact the well-being of a moral subject C) is capable of determining their actions.

When a moral actor considers how their actions might impact the well-being of moral subjects, a moral judgement exists. When the actor acts on such judgement a moral action exists.

The complexity of well-being corollary

(All other things being equal) where well-being is easy to decide, morality is easy to decide; where well-being is difficult to decide, morality is difficult to decide.

Torturing a human to death against their will over many years for no reason is not a moral action. Determining whether a terminally ill patient experiencing a moderate amount of suffering each day should be allowed to terminate their own life is more difficult to decide.

The complexity of integration corollary

(All other things being equal) where combining the well-being of consciousnesses in order to weigh the impact of actions is easy to decide, group decisions of morality are easy; where it is unclear how to weigh consciousness as a group, morality is difficult to decide.

For instance, all things being equal, if you can save 10 people or 1 person from a burning building, the most moral thing to do would be to save 10 (the integration of consciousness is easy in this case). But how do we compare the discomfort of chicken consciousnesses against the pleasure that humans experience from eating chickens and chicken products (this is more difficult to decide)?

The complexity of predicting future impact corollary

(All other things being equal) where predicting the complete outcome of our actions is easy to do, morality is proportionately easy to decide; where fully predicting the outcome of our actions is difficult to do, morality is correspondingly difficult to decide.

How is morality objective?

There are various ways in which this conception of morality may be thought of as objective:

Well-being, although subjectively appreciated by the being in question, seems to be an objective phenomenon (i.e., people genuinely experience better and worse states of well-being).

Acting with the intent to improve the well-being of conscious creatures is the thing that makes an action moral. In that sense moral action has an objective reality, I think (i.e., the person actually intended a specific outcome for that reason). The person may be mistaken in predicting the impact of their actions, so a moral action may not actually be effective in its intended outcome (to avoid decreases in well-being and produce increases in well-being).

There exists some set of actions which would legitimately improve the well-being of conscious creatures and some set of actions which would legitimately degrade the well-being of conscious creatures. That set of possible actions seems objective to me. However, because we don't have access to this set (or landscape) in any direct way, morally minded creatures are constantly interrogating others for:

Their state of well-being

The kinds of things that alter their well-being

Their assessment of the future impact of actions

Well-being is often difficult to decide. Integration of well-being is often difficult to decide. However, once people agree on functions of well-being and integration, then morality may be considered independent of the person running the calculations, so it is also objective in that sense.

For example, a moral actor is quite often a moral subject when they are making moral judgments. In a given group scenario involving multiple actors and subjects where the actors each share the same well-being and integration functions, the resulting moral calculation will always be the same (i.e., it would be the same regardless of who is making the calculation, irrespective of their personal feelings or biases).

Grounding the ought

The 'ought' in this conception of morality is derived from an appreciation of the well-being of conscious creatures. If we care about the well-being of conscious creatures, then we 'ought' to act morally since our actions may impact that well-being. An entity that truly doesn't care about the well-being of conscious creatures can be said to be acting a-morally (for instance, a shark killing and eating a human). An entity which acts in contravention of their moral judgement is being immoral.

edit: added in "all things being equal" caveats and more statements of objectivity

Bit of an old thread, but I'm going through the posts you linked me to. :)

This also resolves the Euthyphro dilemma

Go LDS theology! This is also something I realized along the way in thinking about the Euthyphro. The problem of evil and the Euthyphro dilemma have good answers in LDS theology.

Does LDS theology actually resolve the Euthyphro dilemma? Or does it just shift the dilemma from God over to some unverifiable "universal law"? LDS theology is silent regarding whether that law was ever established by some ultimate God as far as I'm aware, but it doesn't ever explicitly state that it wasn't, right? Could the dilemma not be rephrased as:

Is what is morally good dictated by the universal law because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is dictated by the universal law?

Not sure. I know that JB Haws (professor of religion at BYU) specializes in race and priesthood issues so is one potential expert who could be queried on this. Also, consider querying the Mormon Historians Facebook group (closed group but easy to gain entrance).

I've been listening to this podcast for a while, also. It's fascinating because it's so great in some ways (lots of acceptance and progressive ways to deal with difficult LDS issues and lots of real grappling with hard issues) and so cringe-y in other ways (mostly when he's toeing an orthodox line, which happens occasionally). And, of course, the guests are all over the place so you get some weird Frankenstein-like ideas (as you related).

Major kudos to the host for being willing to talk about these hard issues and trying to find ways to lovingly resolve them.

But yeah, I've been tempted multiple times to write in and very politely give him an earful on this or that. And ultimately, most of us hear agree that most of these issues are far better resolved outside the LDS framework to begin with.